The College Curriculum Council passed a motion Tuesday requesting that the Faculty Executive Committee call a faculty forum to discuss the proposed addition of pluses and minuses to the grading system. The council did not discuss the merits of such a policy change.
About 10 students participated in a small protest outside the meeting to voice opposition to the proposed change. Dean of the College Paul Armstrong, who chairs the CCC, allowed two of the protestors to sit in on the meeting.
The CCC called for broad student input before a decision on the policy change is made. The committee requested that students be allowed to attend the faculty forum and stressed the importance of Undergraduate Council of Students forums and informal conversations between students and faculty on the issue.
Faculty forums - opportu-nities for faculty to discuss issues more thoroughly than at faculty meetings - can only be called by the FEC, and have no decision-making authority. The CCC will reconsider the proposal to add pluses and minuses to the grading system after a faculty forum has been held.
The addition of pluses and minuses, which is an amendment to the Faculty Rules and Regulations, must be app-roved by a faculty vote before it becomes University policy.
The bulk of the CCC's deliberations did not focus on the merits of the grade change proposal itself. Instead, CCC members discussed the best way to proceed with the debate to ensure that faculty and student opinions are considered.
Some CCC members suggested that a faculty vote be held as soon as possible to make the discussion less abstract and more immediate. In the end, though, the CCC decided to reject an immediate faculty vote.
"Ultimately the faculty does determine what kind of an institution (Brown) is, (but) discussion between the faculty and the students still has to take place," said University Registrar and CCC member Michael Pesta.
The decision of the CCC to request a faculty forum on the issue rather than a faculty vote reflects the council's opinion that more discussion is needed on this issue before any decisions are made.
Armstrong said students should share their arguments with the faculty instead of the CCC, which can only endorse - not enact - the policy change.
Several other CCC members underscored the need for thorough discussion that takes into account the range of viewpoints found on campus.
Jonathan Waage, senior advisor to the dean, expressed concern that the faculty should be given an opportunity to discuss alternatives to the current proposal.
Freya Zaheer '06 said stu-dents do not believe the decision-making process has been democratic or provided them enough opportunity to voice their opinions. She added that "what happens right now (will most likely) inflame the entire campus" and suggested waiting until UCS has held a forum to make any decisions.
Shyam Sundaram '08 said that requesting a faculty vote on the proposal would give students the impression that it was now out of their control and likely to be implemented without their input.
Lynne DeBenedette, senior lecturer in Slavic languages, raised the concern that requesting a faculty vote at this time left "no way of ensuring that the discussion happens" in a faculty forum or any other venue.
Luther Spoehr, lecturer in education, said creating more forums for discussion is important because "the idea deserves to be debated on its merits and not behind this smoke-screen (of complaints about the) process." The discussion "should involve all students, all faculty" he said, adding that "students may be underestimating how much influence they have with the faculty."
DeBenedette agreed, saying that "substantive discussion ... about the whys of the beliefs" has not occurred. She also cautioned that students should not assume the faculty has already made up its mind irreversibly.
